Out of sheer frustration, I googled these words: "psychiatric disorders" and "fantasy", and what do you think I found? Only the answer to the $64,000 question: What in blazes is the problem with almost everyone in the Bush administration?

It's SCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER. Check out this link and see if you agree:

http://www.npi.ucla.edu/ssg/schizoaffective.htm

The website cautions that all symptoms will not be evident in every patient, but among the listed symptoms, you'll find these that match up with Bushy behavior:

Hallucinations. Delusions. Thinking disturbances. Blunted affect. Poverty of speech or content of speech. Inattention. Euphoric or expansive mood. Irritability. Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity. Racing thoughts. Increased goal-directed behavior.

At least now we have a NAME for this Bush disorder. Oddly, it seems to be communicable, infecting anyone who works closely with this President. Now, as nearly everyone agrees when discussing the Va. Tech tragedy, treating mentally ill individuals is necessary before they bring harm to themselves or others. Let's get with it, American Psychiatric Association -- this nation has suffered enough!

The complete and utter LACK of evidence somehow is transformed into ALL THE PROOF THAT IS NEEDED, and in fact disproves any evidence supporting the contrary position.

Could there really be any more than 1 or 2 percent of the population that believes WMDs *were* found in Iraq, but both Bush and the Democrats want this "fact" hidden to avoid embarrassment?

Maybe the media should spend more time looking at how the various candidates have spent (or promise to spend) PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS entrusted to them, rather then stooping to the People/US/National Enquirer celebrity "reports" to which we're currently being subjected.

Does anyone REALLY care about how John Edwards spends his own money? Is there nothing of any greater importance that political reporters could be writing -- or put another way, is there anything of LESS importance than this synthetic "flap" about haircuts?

Berger WAS investigated, prosecuted, and convicted after pleading guilty.

Let the chips fall where they may in THIS case. You may not like Berger's punishment -- it did seem like nothing more than a hand-slap -- but if nothing happened THIS time, what is there to fear?

After all, the mishandling of classified information is hardly a minor offense -- try to imagine the shrieks of treason and betrayal from the right wing echo chambers if the Clinton White House were accused of such conduct! The mind boggles.

...is that the first one, from 2001, is OBVIOUSLY something written for Dubya by someone else. Whether these words literally came from his mouth, or were simply published in his name, HE DID *NOT* WRITE THEM. He COULD NOT write something so cogent and grammatical, sorry to say.

On the other hand, the second item from today is just as obviously prime Grade-A Dubya, speaking straight from the heart.

Pointing out the differences between the Potemkin Village Dubya and the REAL Dubya, while fun, ought to be pretty obvious to everyone by now. This isn't true hypocrisy, because no one could believe that the Current Occupant himself really believes the crap prepared for him to say, or write, or do in public. It's all for show -- but luckily, fewer and fewer people are suckered into believing a single word that passes his lips.

Talk about the famous Vietnam-era "credibility gap" -- we're now witnessing a credibility CHASM as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Thanks for the clarification, GPanos -- I definitely missed your tongue-in-cheek. Your note sure read like something from "Joe" -- hey, where IS my favorite contributor anyway?

...the first completely faith-based Presidency. You just gotta believe, and simply don't need anything as mundane and worldly as objective EVIDENCE to back up your beliefs.

That would make you just another Doubting Thomas, and any good fundamentalist Christian wants to avoid THAT.

That "Joe" who posted a message to the Bill Moyers site doesn't know how to type and/or spell. OUR Joe doesn't write that badly -- so he's still missing in action. Maybe he DID enlist and join the fight in Iraq that he's been supporting (with his WORDS alone, to be sure) for so long...

I'm a huge fan of the old Alfred Hitchcock TV show, and own the DVD sets from the first two seasons. Just had a huge wave of deja vu, explaining Rush Limbaugh's behavior.

The very first episode of the Hitchcock series was entitled "Revenge" and starred Vera Miles as a new bride who is attacked by a man, becoming nearly catatonic as a result. She and her understandably protective husband are driving down the street afterwards, when she cries out, "There's the man!" at someone walking down the street. Long story short, her husband kills the man in a fit of satisfying revenge. Unfortunately, as they drive away, the wife continues to cry out "There's the man" at EVERY MAN she sees. Her husband's blood chills within him as her realizes he's murdered an innocent man.

So it is appears to be with Rush Limbaugh -- there's a liberal under every rock, behind every bush, in (and out) of every closet -- they're the root of all evil, responsible for every problem we have in this world. God, I wonder if his mother had been frightened by a LIBERAL while she was pregnant with little Rush? There's got to be a logical reason. Hmmm, Rush was born in January 1951, so maybe it was an event during her 1950 pregnancy -- perhaps the start of the Korean war? We may never know.

Anyway, I'd say Rush has taken the old Vera Miles part, while all the rest of us are portraying the husband -- Rush/Vera is completely nuts, and this realization has finally dawned on everyone else.